Committee tables Rutherford amendment, reports sweepstakes bill (S.3) favorably

The House Judiciary Committee heard a report on Senate Bill 3, known in committee as the sweepstakes bill, which sponsors said clarifies that electronic gambling machines may not be treated as sweepstakes exceptions. Mr. Bannister told the committee the measure ‘‘clarifies that that was not an exception to the prohibition against gambling devices, electronic gambling devices.’’

Representative Rutherford proposed an amendment to make magistrate-court determinations about whether a machine is permissible binding on law enforcement until reversed on appeal. Rutherford argued the amendment was needed because, he said, law enforcement in some counties repeatedly seized machines despite magistrate rulings finding them lawful: "They keep, they seize it as many times as they want," he said, describing what he called judge-shopping and selective enforcement by SLED and some sheriff's offices.

Opponents questioned whether the amendment was relevant because the bill itself makes the targeted devices illegal. After debate, a motion to table the Rutherford amendment carried by show of hands, 14 in favor and 6 opposed. The committee then voted to report S.3 favorably out of committee by the same margin. The chair announced the committee's action: S.3 received a favorable report and will proceed to the next legislative stage.

Why it matters: committee action advances a bill that sponsors say will remove ambiguity in state law about whether sweepstakes or similar contrivances can be used to justify electronic gambling devices. The tabling of Rutherford's amendment leaves unresolved the specific question of whether magistrate rulings should be binding on law enforcement pending further floor debate.

What's next: S.3 has been reported favorably by the House Judiciary Committee and will move forward in the legislative process; the committee did not adopt Rutherford's proposed binding-amendment.